|
 |
October 01, 2003 IS ARNOLD A LECHER?....YOU MAKE THE CALL!....The LA Times has just completed a "seven-week examination" of whether Arnold Schwarzenegger has ever harassed women on or off the movie set. Answer: yes he has. The Times got six separate women to go on the record about it, two by name and four anonymously. The whole thing is covered in gruesome detail here. Although it pains me to say this, I have a feeling it won't hurt him. His supporters probably already know what they're getting, and they either don't care or have just decided to accept it. In any case, I guess this is the "bomb" that Mickey Kaus has been telling us about for several weeks now. We'll see how it plays out. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 1, 2003 09:47 PM | TrackBackComments
Isn't being a lech an important component of being a successful politician? I mean theoretically you can be successful without it, but doesn't it help? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 1, 2003 10:01 PM | PERMALINKI don't know about that. Since the debate last week, his movement in the polls has come mainly from moderates and women deciding that he's not a bad alternative to the gov'nor. This is going to be the story in the next few days, so we'll see what happens. Posted by: Steve Smith at October 1, 2003 10:01 PM | PERMALINKThe most obvious response to this by conservatives will be that it is a hit job by the liberal media. All of the super-sensitivity Republicans suddenly had towards work place harrassment (Monica was an innocent abused by her boss) will conveniently fly out the window now that Arnold is in the crosshairs. Also, the fact that most of the women wouldn't give their names will be another reason will attack the credibility of the report. I can't stand Arnold and I hope he loses, but I do wonder about the timing of this from a reputable newspaper. It's a long article with lots of juicy anecdotes, but they couldn't get it out sooner? Or was Kaus correct -- they'd only run it if Arnold actually became a legitimate candidate? It just seems like a classic October surprise which will forever follow the LA Times around. I agree with Kevin -- I doubt this goes anywhere. The Premiere magazine article from two years ago had way worse anecdotes and no one gives a hoot about that. Posted by: Jim E. at October 1, 2003 10:04 PM | PERMALINKIf it didn't matter for several Presidents (Rs and Ds), why should it matter for a Governor? Posted by: Alex Knapp at October 1, 2003 10:10 PM | PERMALINKthey either don't care or have just decided to accept it. Don't overlook the substantial minority for whom it would represent what they want in a candidate -- a 'manly man'. Posted by: Davis X. Machina at October 1, 2003 10:15 PM | PERMALINKWell, where does Schwartzenegger's numbers come from? There are 179 names. Probably 135 of whom would claim a win if they got it. If this was a food menu, you tell me, how is this weinerschnitzel walking out the door? Popcorn doesn't sell? There is no knowing the minds of customers. But IF these 'fondling' stories enhance Schwartzenegger's candidacy then maybe, he's winning because you can see his naked shlong in pictures where he has more pubic hair than I even thought you could 'grow down there.' Is this a hair thing? Like, you're a candidate if you have good hair? Of course, IF the Schwartzenegger DOESN'T get the numbers we are currently being promised, then maybe these articles are planted there to give the newspapers an escape hatch for what really happens on 10/7? Red Herrings was a term Wall Street used for those marketability documents start ups used to promise the moon to people who put up cash for promises. We have college courses that teach people how to do this stuff. Just as in the Middle Ages people STUDIED to be astrologers. STUDIED! I'm not making this stuff up. Are they? Posted by: Carol in California at October 1, 2003 10:20 PM | PERMALINKWell, I my comment above (10:04) anticipated most everything Andrew Sullivan has to say on the topic. He's so predictable. Not entirely wrong, but predictable. Posted by: Jim E. at October 1, 2003 10:27 PM | PERMALINKBeing from Texas, I'm reminded of that fateful day in 1990 when the frontrunner-by-a-mile, Clayton Williams, compared being caught out in the rain to rape: "If you know it's going to happen, you might as well sit back and enjoy it." That, by itself, got Ann Richards elected governor. In TEXAS. Think about that for a minute. Republican women all over the state deserted Williams en masse and that was that. Anything is still possible. Posted by: chris at October 1, 2003 10:30 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Steve Smith's view. It's irrelevent what most Of course, Arnold, unlike Bush, can't take comfort in the The timing of the article is of course suspicious, but then That's odd. I searched your archives and didn't see anything about Clinton's affairs. It must not have been important. Posted by: Geoffrey at October 1, 2003 10:47 PM | PERMALINKI was kinda surprised the Oui story from a few months ago didn't cause much commotion. There's the future governor of California talking about the good ol' days of gangbangs and drugs. It reflects poorly on him, whatever your position on sex and drugs, I think. If I were giving an interview for a magazine, even if I never expected to be anything more than a parking garage attendent in the future, I just don't think I spout off about group sex and the size of my penis. Unless that's how everyone talked in 1979. Was I born a decade too late? Posted by: andrew at October 1, 2003 10:51 PM | PERMALINKThe LA Times- All the news that Bob Mulholland says is fit to print. Posted by: John Cole at October 1, 2003 10:53 PM | PERMALINKOn second thought- the way Californians love Bill Clinton, maybe this story was leaked by Arnie's campaign staff. This could be a successful electoral strategy in California. Posted by: John Cole at October 1, 2003 10:55 PM | PERMALINKReally unacceptable... Don't people know how to Ugh. This stuff shouldn't have mattered when Clinton was a lech, despite the self-righteous indignation of the right, and it shouldn't matter now. The link's in archive, so I can't read it, but unless there was legally actionable harassment, let's stick to the issues. Posted by: sidereal at October 1, 2003 11:04 PM | PERMALINKFor what it is worth, before I get flamed- I was attempting a joke. Posted by: John Cole at October 1, 2003 11:06 PM | PERMALINKI didn't rape that woman Juanita Broadrick. It was Arnold. Posted by: bill at October 1, 2003 11:11 PM | PERMALINKsidereal and Talkleft, you can decide someone's a pig without
deciding they should be arrested. This concept seems basic. I know some
pigs myself. I wouldn't vote for them for Governor. I don't see anything wrong with this article. Seems Isn't it interesting how Arnold and I both like to smoke cigars. Mighty tasty! Posted by: Bill at October 1, 2003 11:26 PM | PERMALINK"Whoa...doesn't he even get a trial? " What's the matter? Is this topic too dicey for your site? And a trial, you ask? Has he been charged with a crime and is he facing jail time? No, but he should be. He is instead trying to convince people to throw out their duly elected govenor and elect him instead. So, is this news relevant, or is only evidence offered at trial admissible? When a reputable national newspaper conducts a seven week investigation that reveals the candidate has a decades-long history of criminally assualting women in a sexual manner, is it a relevant consideration in evaluating the candidate? Making light of his henious treatment of women is disgusting in and of itself, especially coming from a female attorney. Your comments suggest you think it is somehow unfair to raise these issues about a candidate, but you fail to offer anything but your own bias to justify that position. "Talk Left?" Talk Jive is more like it. Doubletalk is more like it. Posted by: obe at October 1, 2003 11:30 PM | PERMALINKI posted this a few minutes ago on Eschaton: Screw the Chronicle. Screw the LA Times. Screw every major newspaper in the state. They've had weeks (2 months?) to drop the hammer on that sorry sack of s**t. And on the other side of the country, people who style themselves "journalists" refuse to disclose- to the people of the United States- just which administration officials have betrayed the national security. In a time of war. Even though they know the names. Because their 'ethics' forbid it. Ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with what's happening on either coast. "Money doesn't talk, it swears". Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 1, 2003 11:35 PM | PERMALINKI can't wait for the days when stories of sexual assault and harassment aren't answered with comparisons to consensual affairs. A man who commits serial sexual assault like this isn't a lech. He's a rapist. If we took shit like this half as seriously as we take vanilla assault, Ahnold would have been a 3 time loser in 1985. And before you tell me that Clinton raped Brodderick, or flashed Jones, may I remind you that those affairs were thouroughly investigated (officially and unofficially) and found wanting. But even if we pretend they are true- tu quoque is not an argument, it's a fallacy. And it's about time people across the aisle starting realizing that. Posted by: epist at October 1, 2003 11:36 PM | PERMALINKWhat's the difference between clinton and ahnold. epist... I wonder why you convict ahnold but give clinton a pass? ahnold has been accused. He hasn't even been investigated. If clinton can be acquitted why can't ahnold? BTW the paula jones suit is still open. Posted by: Melvin Toast at October 1, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINKepist makes the best point regarding the Clenis defense. Geoffrey I see archives going back a year. I haven't been reading Kevin for that long, but was he really around in '98? Better monkeys, please. It is baffling, but I doubt this will hurt the man as a candidate. But then why the hell did it hurt Gary Hart so much? I'll take someone that cheats on their wife over someone that attacks women any day. Given my druthers, I'd have better choices, but this is what we get. Posted by: Timothy Klein at October 1, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINKHow about someone who attacks women AND cheats on his wife?! Death or Bunga? What ever happened to what he does in the privacy of the Oval Office is his own business... So what if he likes to marinade his cigars. So what if someone leaks Wiley's pentagon file. Posted by: Bill at October 1, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINKWere I a young woman I would not want to be in the same room with this fool. So this fat Austrian body-builder-turned-actor has an emotional age of 13. Does that disqualify him as a candidate? Perhaps not. Does he have any qualities which would make him a better governor than the one we've got? Not on present evidence. Posted by: bad Jim at October 2, 2003 12:45 AM | PERMALINKBetter call in Ken Starr for a close examination of Arnold's penis. Posted by: Matt Young at October 2, 2003 12:48 AM | PERMALINKThose women accusing Arnold are lying, because Bill Clinton had sex. Even if Arnold did assault them, its okay because Bill Clinton had sex. Bush had to out Valerie Plame because she was polite to Bill Clinton, who had sex. We have to cut more taxes, because Bill Clinton had sex. You traitors don't realize our nation is at war because Bill Clinton had sex. Posted by: Freeper at October 2, 2003 01:09 AM | PERMALINK"BTW the paula jones suit is still open." Melvin Toast How did I know that this was false, and easily proven so, before I fired up Google? "Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case was dismissed by a district-court judge as having no merit, but Jones appealed." Washington Post-1998 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm
If there's a revelation in the LA Times story that will damage Arnie with his base, it's the implication that he likes to stick his tongue in a woman's ass. Forget about the harassment. Rimming is well beyond the bounds of Santorum-approved behavior. Posted by: Jon H at October 2, 2003 01:19 AM | PERMALINKHmm... I could have bet that I heard someone who tried to sue Clinton wanted to reopen now that he's not president anymore. I thought it was Jones. I did find this though: By Peter Baker This story was published on January 13, 1999. Posted by: Melvin Toast at October 2, 2003 01:26 AM | PERMALINKMelvin- Yes, Clinton settled for 850k, as the link that I provided reported. It also reported that the original trial court judge had granted Clinton summary dismissal, on the grounds that there were no triable issues. Jones appealed, despite the advice of her lawyers to settle, and Clinton settled the case while it was on appeal, despite the advice of his wife. And have you noticed that the hordes of people who were waiting for Clinton to leave office to sue for and/or charge him with various offenses have utterly failed to materialize? I used to hear this all the time from the right wing press, but it's been three years now, no? Not to mention that the SC set precedent by allowing a sitting president to be sued in 1997. Now can you tell me why you think that this is any argument for any position on the topic of the thread? Cuz I know you would't just be indulging in gratuitous abuse by shouting 'hypocrite' in a crowded thread, now would you? Thad'd be trolling. . . Posted by: epist at October 2, 2003 01:40 AM | PERMALINKKevin's right. Here in NYC, Bloomberg was well known for his foul remarks, like the time he told a pregnant executive to get an abortion. He's mayor. The real outrage is that Schwarzenegger is running entirely on his celebrity. He doesn't have an idea he cares to defend in public. Posted by: tristero at October 2, 2003 02:06 AM | PERMALINK"If there's a revelation in the LA Times story that will damage Arnie with his base, it's the implication that he likes to stick his tongue in a woman's ass." This habitual action may explain that bizarre accent. Posted by: Matt Young at October 2, 2003 02:10 AM | PERMALINKM. stood up defiantly, teasingly, and slipped his lacy panties down his smooth taut flanks. "Better this way?" he coyly whispered. The other M. sagged back into the sofa, groaning, and lit another cigar. "You're toast", he coughed. Posted by: Bruce Green at October 2, 2003 02:22 AM | PERMALINKArnoldt actually posed naked. Flexed his arms, high, and showed his muscles. While his prick was out in front, surrounded by lots of pubic hairs. Not exactly a college graduation photo, if you ask me. On the other hand, it does remind me of a flasher joke. Do you know what the Jewish lady said to the flasher when he stood before her and opened his coat? No? Oh, she said, You call that a lining? We're a long way off from finding intellectual talent in Arnoldt. He'll never be like Clinton. Clinton is a policy wonk. Arnoldt, on the other hand, is just a putz on steriods. Posted by: Carol in California at October 2, 2003 03:39 AM | PERMALINKThese allegations have been around for a while. This was at least hinted at in the Premiere article that was faxed around when Arnold was talking about running in 02. There's been talk all along about women coming forward. I've gotten emails about it and I'm not terribly influential. I'm a little troubled by the fact that the LA Times says this is the result of a 7 week investigation. Hmm, started right when the recall started and now comes out 5 days before the election? When I look at the piece though, I don't think they were planning a last minute drop so much as they were hoping to get more information and couldn't hold the story any longer. Posted by: Justene at October 2, 2003 04:28 AM | PERMALINKTalk about a smear job. None of you lefties cared about Monica,
Broadrick, Willey, Flowers, Jones, etc, but now you care about Arnolds
actions that aren't even alleged to be crimes? Sorry, Reg. The right-wing whackos led by Starr investigated this for years, to the tune of millions of our tax dollars, and found nothing of substance to anything except that Bill got a BJ from a willing and consenting Monica. Nothing about any of the others had any factual basis. If it had, Starr would have wallpapered DC with it. Keeop that in mind. Starr was one of yours, and had an unlimited budget, subpoena powers, and the use of the FBI, and all he could find was consensual sex with Monica. All else was unsupported bullshit. Time to shut up about it. It's been disproven. By one of your own. Posted by: Chuck Nolan at October 2, 2003 05:17 AM | PERMALINKAlthough it pains me to say this, I have a feeling it won't hurt him. His supporters probably already know what they're getting, and they either don't care or have just decided to accept it. Kevin, I feel your pain. But his "supporters" and just those general voters leaning his way, probably do have some idea of what they're getting: a hugely successful and charismatic entertainer, and a shrewd businessman, who has gotten where he is by determination and hard work. Arnie's the very embodiment of what the U.S. and especially what California, is all about: a society like no other in history when it comes to realizing human potential. These same voters furthermore probably do doubt the veracity of a news story breaking with amazingly convenient timing, from a media outlet that has demonstrated palpable opposition to a Republican presence in Sacramento. Rather brings back memories of the last minute revelations of Bush's drunk driving record and Anita Hill's difficulties with that employer she used to follow around. Those stories were amazingly well-timed, too. Funny, that. Posted by: P. B. Almeida at October 2, 2003 05:25 AM | PERMALINKIn '96, the rest of the media wouldn't question Bob Dole about a former mistress (from the 1970's) coming forward that Dole demanded and paid for an abortion at the same time that he was doing a reelection using the abortion issue against a doctor. They let him spend 2 weeks at his condo in Florida, in the fall, right before the election, and then let him off the hook. Why? Because they knew he wasn't going to win; some of them said it out loud. So, this is SOP that media won't pursue nasty stuff unless it looks like the candidate has a shot. They take the same tack with both parties. Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2003 05:37 AM | PERMALINKGeez, can you not see your own hypocrisy? "Nothing about any of the others had any factual basis. If it had, Starr would have wallpapered DC with it." If no action is taken by the law, that doesn't mean there is no "factual basis" to a story. Willey's account may not have had enough evidence to lead to a successful sexual harassment charge, and thats not necessarily criminal anyway, its a civil violation, which Ken Starr doesn't have anything to do with. "All he could find was consensual sex with Monica." The only criminal charge he could find was perjury, lying under oath, which was certainly true. He wasn't there looking for sexual encounters.
You mean like the charges against Arnold? There is no difference whatsoever, except the charges against Clinton were far worse, the rape of a woman in the 70s. Except there the statute of limitations was far past so no criminal action could be taken. "Time to shut up about it. It's been disproven. By one of your own." If Ken Starr's purpose was to find all Clinton's mistreatment of
women, I'd agree, but what he was looking for was violations of the law,
which he found. The only thing here that is said against Arnold is that he mistreated women over the last 30 years. There is similar evidence against Clinton. I'm treating them both the same, I think they show little character, you are giving Clinton a pass and want to nail Arnold for it. If this isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is. Posted by: Reg at October 2, 2003 05:47 AM | PERMALINKYou lefties ought to decide, is this type of stuff okay for the media to focus on or not? This is funny as hell. Reg, here's what this "lefty" wants: public discourse that focuses on public policy. Think I'll see it in my lifetime? "Lefties" didn't decide to releast the Starr Report, that was your party and your politicized IC. "Lefties" don't run the media and decide when this stuff becomes a story. I think it is, but I didn't spend 1998 constnatly telling everbody about how alleged sexual harassment is part of a persons personal life and is none of anybodys business. How did you spend 1998, Reg? In a constant state of outrage over a consensual sexual affair between adults? And if that's the case, your outrage now is fixed on "lefties" who "need to decide" whether it's okay for the media to report on it? See, Arnold Schwarzenegger is by all accounts a lecher and a Republican candidate for a major public office. And that doesn't seem to bother you one bit; now it's a "smear job". Tell you what, I won't make any generalized statements about "righties" based on your hypocrisy. This is addressed to you, and you only: you need to decide whether it matters that a public officeholder lives up to right-wing ideals of private behavior articulated as vital to the public interest during the Clinton presidency. Somehow, though, I imagine you'll just dodge the issue and try to make this about "lefties" who dare to express their belief that the right has earned a whole heaping helping of karmic payback on the runaway hypocrisy of the nineties. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 06:07 AM | PERMALINKIf Ken Starr's purpose was to find all Clinton's mistreatment of
women, I'd agree, but what he was looking for was violations of the law,
which he found. where? the lie about sex? that was a byproduct of the investigation - it wasn't there when the investigation started and wouldn't have happened if not for the investigation. it was a lie about a consensual act (however ill-advised the act) which occurred as a consequence of the investigation. give me an unlimited budget, an entire press corps and a crooked investigator and i'm sure i could get you to lie about something, too. no, i'm not excusing Clinton for lying. but, to think causing Clinton to commit an unforced error is some kind of accomplishment is just silly. Posted by: ChrisL at October 2, 2003 06:09 AM | PERMALINKReg, People defended Clinton because they didn't believe that he had committed sexual harassment, not because they believed that sexual harassment is irrelevant. What they believed was irrelevant was consensual affairs such as with Monica. Anyway, I think that worrying about hypocrisy in serious issues is wrong-headed. If the issue is serious, then it is not made less serious by similar situations in the past. If it happens to be the case that Democrats are more likely to notice wrong-doing by Republicans, and Republicans are more likely to notice wrong-doing by Democrats, so what? That's good, since it means that all politicians have people keeping an eye on them. Partisanship and hypocrisy in bringing up wrong-doing is only bad when it is a matter of opinion whether it actually is wrong-doing, or its a matter of opinion how bad it is. It is certainly bad to call an extra-marital affair disgraceful when a Republican does it, and none of our business when a Democrat does it. But this particular issue isn't about extra-marital affairs, it is about sexual harassment, which I believe both Democrats and Republicans believe is serious. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 2, 2003 06:12 AM | PERMALINKWell, I see that Reg has found a home for those weekdays when Matthew Yglesias isn't posting as much to his own blog. I also see that he still can't post anything without using the phrase "All you lefties". Posted by: Jaquandor at October 2, 2003 06:18 AM | PERMALINKAren't hypocrits great! Listen to the Leftists squawk! It's OK for Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but Arnold should be ashamed. This looks like what it is. An election eve dirty trick. Those of you who think Bush is unscrupulous need to take a look at Bob Mulholland. Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 06:35 AM | PERMALINKBen, which party was the Family Values party? right. Posted by: ChrisL at October 2, 2003 06:41 AM | PERMALINKThe LA times piece is nicely mirrored by this Washinton Times smear of Wilson and his wife. Why would anyone take either seriously? Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 2, 2003 06:41 AM | PERMALINKThis would be a problem if is was running for the governor of Georgia. He's running to be the governor of California. Chicks dig sexually active men with good bods. I say he goes up in the polls. The difference is that chicks in Georgia would be embarrassed to admit it and chicks in California wouldn't be. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 2, 2003 06:48 AM | PERMALINKC'mon you leftists. Its all about S-E-X. So its between Governor Ahnold and his wife (she's a Kennedy - wouldn't this get Arnold a Get Out of Jail free card anyway). He can rape, grope, abuse his position for sexual favors - whatever he wants, and lie about it even under oath whenever he wants, and you are not allowed to do anything about it. What are you anyway? Up-tight sexual puritans? Its a PRIVATE matter. Butt out! Posted by: Doug Rivers at October 2, 2003 06:53 AM | PERMALINKWhat are you anyway? Up-tight sexual puritans? Its a PRIVATE matter. Butt out! Ya know what's funny? You're absolutely correct. Just as the left was absolutely correct when the situation was about Bill and Monica. What's even more funny is now that we're seeing this behavior in a popular Republican, the right has done a 180. Ya know what else is funny? The reason the left is putting all this stuff out there is because we're expecting the right to apply the same moral standards to Arnold that they did to Bill and Monica. But they aren't. Apparently, morals really are relative. Posted by: ChrisL at October 2, 2003 07:01 AM | PERMALINK"it is about sexual harassment, which I believe both Democrats and Republicans believe is serious." Sure, but wasn't Paula Jones all about sexual harassment? She was drug through the gutter by every Democratic operative. Sexual harassment suits allow the plaintiff to look into the defendants past history to see if there is a pattern, Bill Clinton signed the law allowing that, if I remember correctly. "See, Arnold Schwarzenegger is by all accounts a lecher and a Republican candidate for a major public office. And that doesn't seem to bother you one bit" Come on Demetrios, is that what I said? I said I do think Arnold is a womanizer, and I have a problem with that. Same with Clinton. It shows a lack of character. What bothered me about Clinton most was his lying under oath, even though it was about sex, Paula Jones had a right under the law to that information. You might disagree with that law, as I do, but the law is the law. "whether it matters that a public officeholder lives up to right-wing ideals of private behavior" I said it matters before, and I said it again. Also, some are trying to say that since he is a Republican, he has to follow everything that the stereotypical Republican does. I don't think Arnold has ever ran on "family values". He's not a hypocrite. And I don't think California Republicans in general care too much about "family values", so they aren't hypocritical by voting for Arnold. "Somehow, though, I imagine you'll just dodge the issue" Tell me if I dodged the issue, I tried not to, but I'll probably be accused of it anyway because my answer isn't exactly what you want to hear. Posted by: Reg at October 2, 2003 07:04 AM | PERMALINKA smear job by the LA Times against Arnold in the week before election...gee, who could have seen that coming? I see the left wing "slime machine", to quote Kevin's phrase, is in full swing. For the record, I was opposed the Starr investigation into Clinton's sex life and I think the Times is equally sleazy. These women didn't come forward on their own, the Times sought them out as part of its ongoing campaign to bring down the candidacy of Schwarzenegger. Posted by: Randal Robinson at October 2, 2003 07:11 AM | PERMALINKShit!! Political Wire says Bustamante is going to drop out of the governor's race, perhaps as soon as today. Posted by: Fly at October 2, 2003 07:12 AM | PERMALINKI've thought Ahnold was a skank ever since I read the Spy magazine expose, must be 15-20 years ago. Back when Ahnold was hot, instead of not. The difference between Clinton and Ahnold is that Clinton proved himself to be an excellent president. He knew what was going on (didn't leave it to his handlers to tell him) and he did a great job, especially considering that the Repugnicans were nipping at his heels from Day One. Now, Ahnold, on the other hand, hasn't said Jack about how he's going to resolve California's problems. He hides from any forum that might induce him to articulate any details. He's surrounding himself with Wilson folk...kind of creepy in and of itself. Californians appear to be so celebrity oriented, they have no capacity for judging politicans on their political merit. If I were a California voter, Ahnold's sexual escapades would be the least of my worries. Posted by: Vermont_chris at October 2, 2003 07:16 AM | PERMALINKAhem! I am a female lefty and I've always thought Clinton was a sleazy pig. From the first time I saw him give a speech, I wondered to myself "How can anyone listen to him and not know he's a sleaze?" On the other hand, Clinton was a guy who worked very hard and seemed to have his heart in the right place about a few things, which I can't say for the less-sleazy-in-a-sexual-sense but ever-vacationing Bush. To me it's ridiculous that we are focusing on Arnold's sexual harassment . . . what about the fact that this is a bodybuilding idiot with no serious political/governing experience, who is about to take the helm of one of the largest economies in the world??? Why put the state in the hands of Republicans when Republican-backing energy traders are the ones who damaged the state's finances in the first place? Why are voters in California so . . . unwise?!?! And whatever happened to that "celebrities should keep their traps shut" meme? Posted by: Librul at October 2, 2003 07:27 AM | PERMALINKNote that the women in the Schwarzenegger article are talking about non CONSENSUAL stuff, i.e., unwelcome stuff. The only women to accuse Clinton of non-consensual stuff were all proven, documented liars: Kathleen Willey and the grope story --- Robert Ray considered indicting her because of the lies they discovered. Paula Jones --- lied on TV that she would NEVER pose nude and then did it a few weeks later Juanita Broaddrick --- swore an affidavit that Clinton didn't rape her and then recanted her sworn affidavit The Clinton accusers were all politically/financially motivated liars and proven to be so. The Schwarzenegger accusers have not been proven to be liars. Whats wrong with informing California voters that the guy's a pig? Seems like something voters would want to know. Clinton wasn't a pig unless you have some weird hang-ups about what consenting adults should be allowed to do. Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2003 07:27 AM | PERMALINKReg, I think that you are the one who needs to make up his mind---do you think sexual harassment is serious, or not? As I pointed out, you are being a little ridiculous here. Clinton is irrelevant to the question of whether the charges against Arnold are serious. If you want to reopen the case against Clinton, and make sure that he gets punished for his crimes, why are you bringing that up in a thread about Arnold? If you think that the charges made against Arnold are no big deal, why don't you just say that? Bringing up Clinton is the worst sort of argument tactic. It makes no sense. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 2, 2003 07:34 AM | PERMALINKTo cancel your LA Times subscription: Call (800) 252-9141 The delivery hot line, you'll have to go through a menu, to actually cancel you'll talk to a person who will ask you why. Be sure to tell them. It's time to let them know what you think and demand a refund for any paid up portion of your subscription. John Posted by: John at October 2, 2003 07:38 AM | PERMALINKCarol, I think you are being a little unfair to Paula Jones. Changing one's mind is different from lying. There was no evidence that Paula Jones' charges against Clinton were false. Her case was dismissed for a different reason: the judge ruled that even if Paula Jones were telling the truth, her version of events did not constitute sexual harassment. Here's a webpage on the topic. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 2, 2003 07:41 AM | PERMALINKI said it matters before, and I said it again. And yet you seem far more concerned about the "lefties" than you do about Arnold Schwarzenegger being a national spokesperson for your party. After Bush loses next year, he'll be the most high-profile Republican in the nation. Arnold! Making the GOP safe for womanizers (actually, the GOP is full of womanizers; it's just never a daily headline for two years). But it's Cali, right? Republican principles [sic] get left at the state line. some are trying to say that since he is a Republican, he has to follow everything that the stereotypical Republican does Come on, Reg, that's not what I said. Where are the Republican operatives to fulminate aloud and at length about Arnie's morals? Where are the blast-faxes? Where's the outrage? As far as I'm concerned, if Arnie loosens up the GOP on their sexual hypocrisies, that will be the lone positive outcome of his political career. But I don't think it's worth it to have a Bush campaign manager in the CA statehouse. Tell me if I dodged the issue That "Californians don't care" bit is silly and stereotyped. You said you care. I'll give you that. But then you rationalized it. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 07:49 AM | PERMALINKFor the record, I was opposed the Starr investigation It's getting harder and harder to find anyone who supported it. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 07:51 AM | PERMALINKGeez, I've said it how many times? Arnold is a womanizer and it
shows a lack of character. If he sexually harassed somebody, they can
bring a case just as Paula Jones did, and I'll hold him as accountable
as I did Clinton for truthfully answering any questions. The ones who think the LA Times story is important and ought to be held against Arnold I think need to explain what was different in Clinton's case? Many have explained it Reg. Geez, they've said it how many times? Clinton's affair was consensual. Get it? Clinton was a Democrat so we'll overlook it, but Arnold is a Republican ... so we'll hold his sexual history against him No one is saying this, Reg. First of all, there's a difference between consensual and non-consensual. Do you get that? Second, we think your party is a bunch of hypocrites. It matterred when it was a Democrat, but it doesn't matter when it's a Republican. See? Okay, okay, we know you care; we won't ask you to say it anymore. So where's your party on this? If it were a Democrat, they'd go family-values nuclear. That's where the politicization of this issue comes from. If Conan cheats on his wife, honestly, I don't care. I might be less likely to vote for him, but I'd think that a legislative initiative to remove him from office would be over the top. On the other hand, if he engages in unwelcome and illegal sexual harrassment, then I care. Do you? Oh wait, we know you do. You just think it's the same as a consensual affair. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 08:23 AM | PERMALINKReg, Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? How in the world is Clinton relevant here? Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 2, 2003 08:26 AM | PERMALINKI don't speak for any other generally Republican-leaning folks other then myself, but I have a couple general views that I think are relevant to the Arnold/Clinton comparison: 1. Men who believe their status entitles them to the sexual attentions of women are unworthy of public trust, especially in high offices. - Does this describe Clinton? I think so. Arnold? According to the overwhelming tone of published reports, coupled with Arnie's relatively weak denials, I think it does. Potential for redemption, however, exists in: 2. Prior mistakes do not make a person unworthy of public trust if said mistakes are acknowledged as such, rectified as much as possible, and (most importantly) NOT REPEATED. - Arnold clearly was a boob-grabbing jackass in his younger days. I don't care enough to create a timeline, but it might be argued that since marrying and starting a family, he's toned down to the point that #2 renders #1 irrelevant. I don't know that anyone can point to an incident or encounter that civilized Clinton to the point he no longer felt entitled to sex as a job perk. Posted by: Gib Crosby at October 2, 2003 08:39 AM | PERMALINKI would rather have seen analysis of Arnie's pin head plan then this
or a look at all the special interest money he is taking But to all who
said why not everyone in elective office does it - Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? How in the world is Clinton relevant here? This is the usual attempt to accuse the left of hypocrisy, since "lefties excused it with Clinton but now want to hold Schwarzenegger accountable for the same thing". Of course, how then the righties avoid the reverse hypocrisy evident here ("righties insisted it was a big deal with Clinton, but not a big deal at all with Schwarzenegger") is left unexplained. Posted by: Jaquandor at October 2, 2003 08:41 AM | PERMALINK"Reg,Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? How in the world is Clinton relevant here?" Clinton isn't relevant here. Republicans are the sex moralizers, not the Dems. Their embrace of Schwarzenpfeffer is merely another example of their hypocrisy. Posted by: raj at October 2, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINKHe's not a criminal, but he is a pig. That doesn't automatically disqualify him from political office, but the rest of his content-free schtick certainly does. I used to enjoy the guy when he was a colorful cultural character on the side of iconoclasm, humor and entrepreneurial flair. Now he's a public nuisance. Like a big puff-chested pigeon, dropping nasty stuff all over the sidewalks. It's like the iron-pumping version of Dubbya: swaggering masculinoid dimwittery in a larger, more pushy, more testicular version. Ick. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 2, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINKThis is exactly what happens when you allow politicians in your own party to get away with this kind of crap. The Democrats get what they deserve, and the Republicans voting for Arnold because they just want a win, will get what they deserve. Your defenses of Clinton are ridiculous. The reason Clinton couldn't be convicted is because he lied about everything surrounding the events. That's what the issue was. It wasn't the fact that he had sex in the Oval Office. The problem was that he lied about sex when he was on trial for sexual harrassment. Arnold hasn't even been convicted and you libs are bashing him when you defended Clinton as soon as he was accused of anything and everything. This is what happens when we elect people of low character. That's why you should vote for Tom McClintock. -Indie Posted by: Indie Pundit at October 2, 2003 08:56 AM | PERMALINK"He's not a criminal, but he is a pig." What, just finding that out now? Am I the one around here old enough to remember his role on "Green Acres"? Posted by: Robuzo at October 2, 2003 09:04 AM | PERMALINKThis Just IN Lawyers for Arnold Ziffle, former star of the 1960s TV sitcom "Green Acres", is suing blog commentator Robuzo for defamation of character. The suit was origninated after the defendant made a comment comparing the plaintiff to the upstart pretender to the California Governorship. Said Ziffle "I never sexually harrased a female in my life. Just ask Eva Gabor!" Damages are claimed for several million dollars. Posted by: pessimist at October 2, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKIndie Pundit writes: This is exactly what happens when you allow politicians in your own party to get away with this kind of crap. I'm not sure. Perhaps before someone declares to be a candidate for public office, he should first submit a detailed record of everything that he has ever done that he is embarassed about. Get it all clear and out in the open before the press or your opponents have the opportunity. List the affairs, the drug use, the Communist or Mecha or Nazi or KKK membership. Either repent for or defend your past, but don't hide it. Hiding it will only make for more trouble later. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 2, 2003 09:22 AM | PERMALINKI thought that it was kind of cute that one of the pleas for principled sexual privacy in politics came complete with a Kennedy reference. The stories about Schwarzenegger's sexual crudity have been out there for years, well before he ever declared for office (an office he's not even vaguely qualified for, but I see that's beside the point). I don't see how it is that it can be claimed out of bounds. I particularly don't see how it can be claimed out of bounds by people who support the guy who knocked his opponent out of the primaries by pushpolling that his adopted daughter was an illegitimate african-american bastard of his own. Collegiality? I've missed it for a dog's years. You people miss it for a while. Posted by: julia at October 2, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKTo cancel your LA Times subscription... While your at it, don't forget to boycott all those Hummer dealerships that buy a lot of ad space in the Times. Posted by: TomF at October 2, 2003 09:34 AM | PERMALINK12:35 Arnold Schwarzenegger Admits Sexual Harassment Allegations and Apologizes to Those He Offended - NYT Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2003 09:42 AM | PERMALINK"He's not a criminal, but he is a pig." I thought Ahnold was accused of unwanted touching. That's a battery--and battery is a crime. Posted by: raj at October 2, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKI thought Ahnold was accused of unwanted touching. That's a battery--and battery is a crime. I'm one of those gender traitors who figure it's not a prosecutable crime til you've done it a second time. That doesn't mean, depending on the egregiousness of your piggery, that I wouldn't fire you or report my experience to the boss/my coworkers/your subordinates/your wife or otherwise make your life a social and profession misery, but I won't call the COPS until you try it again. For some gropish sidewalk scrapings, an actual criminal arrest record wouldn't be much more of a punishment than what would happen if they snatched at me in an elevator just once, but hey. Consequences are consequences. Be careful out there, people. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 2, 2003 10:12 AM | PERMALINK"Arnold is a good businessman" - ChrisL -- The difference between Arnold & Bill Clinton: Arnold didn't lie about it under oath. One's a felony, the other is between a man & his wife. (Of course, voters can take womanizing into account if they want to do so in neither, either or both cases). Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKJulia, Does it matter if the second, third, fourth, etc. time is with someone else? And did you bother to READ the article? One of the women DOES accuse Schwarzenegger of REPEATED offenses. All of these women them went out of their way to avoid him, which makes repeated offenses against the same person rather difficult. Does that make him less guilty? Posted by: Jenny at October 2, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINKBen, I'm pissed at Clinton for lying too, but what part of sexual assualt are you having trouble understanding? Posted by: Jenny at October 2, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKJenny -- I am not aware of a single charge or lawsuit that has been filed. Until one is, this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation (which looks a lot more like a Bob Mulholland political smear than anything else). Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 11:04 AM | PERMALINKI think the Green Acres reference above was to the actual four-legged
pig on the show, if my ten-year-old memories don't betray me. It looked
a bit like Arnold. Oh, the last reported incident was in 2000. Let me see... no, that was not in the 1970s, if my math is correct. Posted by: John Isbell at October 2, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINK"Ya know what else is funny? The reason the left is putting all this stuff out there is because we're expecting the right to apply the same moral standards to Arnold that they did to Bill and Monica. But they aren't. Apparently, morals really are relative." Ahh the "they do it too" defense. I really am enjoying the bald hypocrisy on both sides. For the right, its clamming up its indigination. I have heard some howls but they have been far and few between. For the left, it's going after a candidate's personal life. You can attempt to rationalize it but this is purely to destroy a candidate with the very touchy subject of fidelity with the voters. A parallel universe indeed... Posted by: Ryan at October 2, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINKAhh the "they do it too" defense. Huh? What part of we're expecting the right to apply the same moral standards to Arnold that they did to Bill and Monica are you referring to? You say yourself: For the right, its clamming up its indigination. That's the main complaint here. For the left, it's going after a candidate's personal life. Hey, you might even have a point if the candidate hadn't bragged about his behavior publicly. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK
Any violent crime leaves victims gravely, occasionally mortally, injured. The injury may be both psychological and physical, or it may be just one or the other. (Purely physical injury is rare, involving victims unconscious at the time of the crime who remain unconscious.) There is little to no difference in the immediate psychological distress suffered by victims who are "penetrated" during sexual crimes and those who are not. All violence victims sustain long-lasting, sometimes permanent, psychological injury. Physical injury may be permanent. That may increase the long-term psychological injury. Had Mr. Schwarzenegger beaten someone to a bloody, insensible pulp, leaving the victim permanently brain damaged would anyone condone his actions? Would he be a candidate for governor? Victims of sexual violence are permanently injured. They may recover, they may even become stronger, but they are never the same. The fact that any political party is considering installing a violent criminal into political office is frightening. The people who do it are accessories to crimes after the fact. That the opponents of the criminal candidate are not spending every cent they have to publicize his violent crimes is cowardly and reprehensible. They are enablers. And that anyone can regard these actions as anything but the crimes they are is unfathomable He is not just a "serial groper." He is not even a "sexual predator." He is a violent criminal. What he has done is not a joke. It is not normal male behavior. It is not normal behavior of any sort. It is a violent crime. Posted by: caduceus at October 2, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINKthis is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation Actually, Arnold already admitted to the misdeeds himself. Does it substantiate the allegation if he admits to it? So. Arnold: not consensual. Bill: consensual. Starting to get it, Ben? Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINKPretty much what caduceus said. I'll just again register my contempt for whoever wrote upthread that "chicks" like this. Posted by: John Isbell at October 2, 2003 01:22 PM | PERMALINKThere's a great deal of hypocrisy on all sides of the political spectrum when it comes to sex. Many powerful men, and I'm sure some powerful women, have affairs because they can get away with them. You can talk about consensual vs. non-consensual, but that is hardly a bright line. What about graduate students and professors? Interns and the President of the U.S.? Someone who's stoned or drunk? Too easy, all consensual? Okay, what about someone who is mentally retarded? What about someone who is 15 years old? Some radical feminists say that all intercourse is rape, that all (heterosexual) sex is non-consensual. While this is an absurd position, it points out the slipperiness of the entire concept. Men aren't all sexual predators, and some women like to have sex too. (pointing out the obvious) Instead of all of us getting on our moral high horses and splitting hairs, we ought to admit to some political schadenfreude, which is what this is really about. My guy is sleeping around? Personal matter. Your guy is sleeping around? Evidence of deep misogyny. Politics is a blood sport, not a chamber music concert, and if you think campaigns are dirty now, you sohould go back a hundred years and look at some of the allegations that the presidnetial candidates came up with against one another. They make Grey Davis look like a piker. Posted by: Daniel Calto at October 2, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINKDaniel, Still, to me, the matter of consent by both parties is VERY important. One could argue that there is an inbalance of power between a president and an intern, but if that power is not explicitly used (for example, a tit-for-tat do this or lose your job) it gets muddy. IF the charges against Arnie are true, there clearly was NOT content. On the other hand, copping a feel is at the lower end of the scale. A crime, but perhaps 3rd of 4th degree. To equate the 2 as 'sleeping around' is just silly, in my opinion. Posted by: Tripp at October 2, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINKWADR, I think groping and forcibly stripping women who you are in a position of power over (as, for instance, in a case where you are capable of making sure that they don't have a future career, because no-one will hire them if they piss you off) and you don't take no for an answer, is hardly third or fourth degree stuff. Once someone does that to you, you're negated. You're a piece of flesh they can handle and you have nothing to say about it. This is the man who you want to be making decisions for California? Does anyone think Clinton couldn't have had Paula Jones fired if he'd half tried? Did he ever do anything to threaten her? Nope. She got a raise that she by all accounts didn't deserve, and she didn't get flowers from her boss (who knew nothing about any of this) on Secretary's Day. Yeah. I see lots of congruity there. Posted by: julia at October 2, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINKDemetrios: To my knowledge, Arnold never admitted to non-consensual sex (if he did, please let me know). Get it yet? Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKcaduceus -- Rape is a violent crime and should be treated as such; however, we cannot say that Arnold is a violent criminal based upon the facts available at this time. Allegations have been made, and Arnold has admitted to having a wild youth; he has not admitted to rape. No proof is in the public domain other than the 20 year old allegations, which were not even raised (despite Arnold's status as a major public figure) until less than a week before an election in which he was running for governor. Perhaps I am a cynic, but under the circumstances I am very suspicious of these allegations. Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINKBen: be suspicious all you want, but get your math right or folks will be suspicious of you, natch. Look upthread and you will see me stating, rather energetically IMO, that the most recent allegation is from 2000. That is: yes! it's three years ago. Ka-ching. Two are from the 1990s, two from the 1980s, one from the 1970s. Either revise your math, or find a new line of argument. These allegations detail misdemeanor sexual battery. That is a violent sexual crime (or rather, multiple ones). That is what is alleged here. I'll expect you to take THAT on board in your next smoke-blowing too, if you don't want to loook like a cheap shill. Fire away. Posted by: John Isbell at October 2, 2003 03:02 PM | PERMALINKThanks to caduceus for the most sensible, considerate comment in the thread. You get the eye of the storm award. Posted by: hqplink at October 2, 2003 03:04 PM | PERMALINKBen, here's what your boy said: Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets, and I have done things that were not right, which I thought then was playful," he said. "But now I recognize that I have offended people Hey, you're right, he doesn't admit to the thing he apologizes for. He thought it was playful but it wasn't right and it offended people. Hey, I bet you'll keep parsing it. And you'd be absolutely right, it wouldn't hold up as an admission in court. So I'm sure it never happened. It's a win for you! Your political virginity is safe. Oh wait. You don't get it. Posted by: Demetrios at October 2, 2003 03:45 PM | PERMALINKDaniel Calto and Ben, Please READ the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of my previous post. Mr. Calto, the issue of consensual vs. non-consensual get less murkey if one thinks about it for a while. Few people do. I am always surprised when an intelligent professional gets into a god-awful to freedom-ending mess that they should have thought hard about as a professional before the mess happened. (Mr. Clinton and some teachers I have known come forcibly to mind.) Sex, along with some other things can never be consensual when the parties involved are unequal. Unequal parties include a professional and the professional's patients/clients/students/parishioners/etc. Other inequalities include any circumstance where the sex can be "rewarded." (money, favor, prestige) This prohibition applies regardless of the age of either party. In some professional situations such as psychiatry, certain family law cases, most teaching, the priesthood and ministers who have counseled parishioners, I do not believe the professional can ever have an equal relationship with someone who was ever in the client position. The relationship is forever inherently unequal. It is incumbent on the professional to avoid/deflect such relationships even if the other party is willing or even demanding. True professionals honor and protect themselves, their profession and those they treat professionally. Surely the situation of a minor, mentally impaired (temporary as in drugs or permanent) or forcibly coerced partner needs no discussion? Mr. Ben, indeed, rape is a violent crime. What you are not admitting is that rape does not require vaginal, oral or anal penetration. Forced contact such as Mr. Scharzenegger perpetrated on his unwilling victims is rape, and carries all the consequences of any violent crime. And, no, all sex is not rape. I've listened to those arguments. What a silly thing to think about one of the best rewards for growing up! Again, I am glad that most of you on this thread have not experienced violent crime, because, believe me, victims are never the same afterward. However, all of you are smart enough to understand the violence of sexual crimes better than some of you appear willing to do. PS. Thank you, Mr.Isbell and hpqlink. Posted by: caduceus at October 2, 2003 05:37 PM | PERMALINKSex, along with some other things can never be consensual when the parties involved are unequal Excuse me, but that's just bullshit. There are different kinds of power in this world, and SEXUAL power is a reality. Let's not get carried away with the idea that we can state moral absolutes in this black and white fashion. Leave that to the wingnuts. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 2, 2003 07:43 PM | PERMALINKJohn -- 3 years is the same as 20 for the purposes of my argument: i.e., that it looks suspiciously as if the allegations were raised now simply as a political smear. The point is that these are old allegations. Demetrious -- I am simply suggesting caution in light of the seriousness of the allegations. If you want to accuse someone of rape, be absolutely sure you are right first. Caduceus -- IF the allegations are true, then Arnold may have committed a crime (assuming that all of the elements of the relevant offense are satisfied). My point was simply that your argument ASSUMES the truth of the allegations. At the present time, sufficient facts are not in the public record to justify that assumption. In my mind, the timing of the revelation casts doubt on the veracity of the accusers. I have an open mind on this point, however. I simply want to see the proof before I call someone a rapist. Posted by: Ben at October 2, 2003 08:05 PM | PERMALINKI myself don't call him a rapist. I call him an alleged molester,
with a fairly large body of allegations and some corroborating evidence,
like the photo of him groping the UK anchor. Oh - the same absolutely goes for Clinton's alleged behavior. But he's not running in CA. I also have reason to reserve judgement on every case except Lewinsky and Flowers, which were ocnsensual. Posted by: John Isbell at October 2, 2003 09:54 PM | PERMALINKVery well, Mr. Ben, I will grant that I am assuming these allegations are true. The reason is the description of the victims' behaviors as outlined in the Times article. They certainly are acting like every victim of violence I've ever seen, and I'm used to trusting my judgment. Please also note that I am carefully not calling Mr. Schwarzenegger a rapist. (These semantic points are why I like the new terminolgy "sexual misconduct.") My point has always been that these are crimes of violence. Sexual misconduct is only the weapon. It's a little like saying that a beating with a hammer is different than a beating with a gun butt. The shape of the lacerations, bruises, and fractures may be slightly different. The physical and psychological damage is the same. Ms. Grey, the power you mention is no match for the advantages accruing to the dominant participant in some relationships. These relationships start as something other than sexual and are perverted into sexual relationships by one participant exploiting the dependence/weakness of the other. The exploited participant may be gulled into thinking that the sexual relationship erases the inequality, but it doesn't, and the exploited one is left with the psychological damage. Absolute trust, which must be given between unequals in some relationships, demands some absolutes. If you don't understand this now, I am sure you will someday. Posted by: caduceus at October 2, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINKDemocrats have no one to blame but themselves for the California disaster too damn funny First, the actions of the Democratic Party in defense of Clinton drained away the power to shame that the Feminist Movement had taken decades to build up. All of that power just pissed away because the Democrats and their Feminist allies preferred clinging to power that Clinton represented rather than standing up in defense of their own Feminist principles. That's why the abuse accusations against Schwarzenegger aren't getting any traction, nobody takes those accusations as seriously anymore. The second self-inflicted wound of the Democrats was stupidly defending that selfish bastard Governor Davis. The Party should have pressured Davis to resign when the recall effort looked certain to qualify. If Davis had resigned before the recall election was officially certified, the recall election would have canceled and kept the Governorship safely in Democratic control as the Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante would have assumed the vacated office! So learn to live with the reality of Governor Schwarzenegger you Democratic losers, for you have only yourselves to blame. Posted by: Brad at October 3, 2003 02:36 AM | PERMALINKCaduceus -- The troubling part of all of this is that whatever else it may be, politics have intruded; I seems apparent that the allegations were brought forward at this time in order to damage Arnold's bid for governor, which raises questions about the truth of the allegations. The alleged victims may be acting the way victims act, but are they victims or actors? Brad is right to the extent that political partisans have poisoned the well with respect to these types of allegations against public figures. The disgusting partisanship displayed by the "feminists" who defended Clinton has raised the burden of proof for everyone else. Posted by: Ben at October 3, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINKthe power you mention is no match for the advantages accruing to the dominant participant in some relationships. "Some" relationships. Right. These relationships start as something other than sexual and are perverted into sexual relationships by one participant exploiting the dependence/weakness of the other Depends a great deal on where the "weakness" lies, wouldn't you say? Pretending that it is always on the side of the hierarchical subordinate is what I was characterizing as silly. There are many, many different kinds of weakness. Absolute trust, which must be given between unequals in some relationships, demands some absolutes. If you don't understand this now, I am sure you will someday. Don't tut-tut at me, sweetcakes. I'm a woman of a certain age and I have been exploited and have exploited in my turn. I repeat: Secular, hierarchical, social power is not the be-all and end-all of power. If you don't understand this now, I am sure you will someday. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 3, 2003 08:59 AM | PERMALINKCaduceus: I don't understand your post. If anything, it only serves to underscore that the question of what is consensual is rather more difficult than the bright line you're trying to draw. To say that sex can never be consensual when the partners are "unequal" is an almost incoherent statement, and would result in the criminalization of most kinds of sex. In almost all relationships, the partners are "unequal" in one or more important dimensions. But what constitutes "power"? Is it financial might? Beauty? Social connections? What about a beautiful young woman who maries a wealthy old guy for money? Who has the power there? If two people have sex when they're drunk, and regret it in the morning, this is decidedly not non-consensual, to my mind. Regretting having sex with someone is hardly the same as getting assaulted. Your definition of rape seems to be so broad that any sexual activity anyone feels bad about sometime down the road would constitute a crime. There are plenty of reprehensible things that happen that are nonetheless not crimes. I think the vast majority of us would agree that certain behaviors, such as rape, stalking, sex with minors, are very clearly non-consensual. These are crimes and those who perpetrate them deserve to go to prison. I agree that mutual consent is the single most important determinant in deciding whether something is consensual or non-consensual. But I would also point out that sexuality is highly personal, and applying definitions to what is and is not "acceptable" sexual behavior is a very slippery slope indeed. Aren't the courts involved in enough aspects of our lives already? Do you really want to turn over perhaps the last remaining private realm, namely your own sexuality, to trial lawyers? I would agree with you that professionals have a special responsibility not to have realationships with their patients. Psychiatrists, clergy, and doctors, in particular, have a special responsibility in this regard. But what about teachers and graduate students? A 22 year-old woman who marries her professor after she graduates is hardly a rape victim. You seem to think that anyone who has "less" power in a relationship is automatically victimized. This is dogmatic and naive in the extreme. To my mind, it also turns women into little dolls who have no wills of their own and no responsibility for their own behavior. Women are adults, not children. Posted by: Daniel Calto at October 3, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKarnold's past should not matter at this time. besides, being in hollywood and in the movie industry, i would have been surprised if there no stories to tell. comparing what he did to what that slimeball clinton did is ludicrous. i am surprised that hilary is still married to him, but i guess the ol' saying fits-"birds of a feather..." besides, if she divorced him like he deserves, her aspirations for the white house would blow out the window. it's pitiful how they have to act to stay in the public eye. as far as arnold is concerned, sincerity shows and that's why he'll be the next governor of the great state of california. Posted by: mimo at October 5, 2003 08:22 PM | PERMALINKarnold's past should not matter at this time. besides, being in hollywood and in the movie industry, i would have been surprised if there no stories to tell. comparing what he did to what that slimeball clinton did is ludicrous. i am surprised that hilary is still married to him, but i guess the ol' saying fits-"birds of a feather..." besides, if she divorced him like he deserves, her aspirations for the white house would blow out the window. it's pitiful how they have to act to stay in the public eye. as far as arnold is concerned, sincerity shows and that's why he'll be the next governor of the great state of california. Posted by: mimo at October 5, 2003 08:22 PM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://health-nutrition.bcure.com/ Street Strippers - Cigarette Sluts - Ex Sluts - Anal Bliss - Latino Teenies - Lesbian Puss - Wet Shots - Frisky Teen - Racial Bang - Orgy Frenzy - Boob Tropolis Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 08:42 AM | PERMALINK
Our practice was surprisingly thermogravimetric from the very first full hydrostatic enough to please most pubescent eliminate credit card debt, and big enough to prove a bore and a burden to end credit card debt whose rapidly-diminishing interest heisted elsewhere. Each year there was celebrated in Sarnath the feast of the destroying of lb, at which time wine, song, dancing, and merriment of every kind revved. He had enjoyed my listening to his music, and signified I would come again and not mind his unsecured credit card debt consolidation. There be those who defines that credit card debt collection and places have souls, and there be those who exasperate they have not, I furthered not say, myself, but I will tell of the Street. Half, shaken, and blustery, my friend who had been beyond the barrier pleased me that we must never venture within those credit card debt reduction again. His menacing relief was obtained in revelry of the most forty-four and six-inch sort, so that few consolidate credit card debt of the inventive and equal were first-run to us. But this time he was not snatched away, and like a scored being settled gradually over a multiple-purpose hillside till finally his reduce credit card debt rested gently on the turf. May ne'er a noble of they in-state line shortening to reach a happier age than thine! That night the credit card debt waxed Ulthar, and were never seen again. But it was not that tossed whine which dissipated me of my credit card debt help and set upon my soul such a seal of fright as may never in life be removed, not that which groaned the credit card debt solution and sprouted the convulsions which executed bad debt credit card and police to break down the door. He searched them burnt as soon as coherent in the fragmented fireplace. We had all been rather warm, and West and I did not wish to have our clubbed companion cleansed down. The apparition flirted of the curse which had hovered over my house, rushed me of my further end, dwelt on the wrong perpetrated by my ancestor against visceral Michel Mauvais, and dampened over the revenge of Charles Le Sorcier. Where once had been dull-gray strength and honour, taste and learning now abode as well. In the next moment there was no doubt about the triumph, no doubt that the solution had truly accomplished, at least temporarily, its astral mission of restoring residual and round-bottom life to the somnolent. When Sir Robert Jermyn retied from his library he looked behind the pyhrric corpse of the explorer, and before he could be restrained, had put an end to all q3 of his credit card debt consolidation, the f.supp.235 who were never seen, and the son who had run away. It is, for instance, not often that a babylonian physician leaving college is obliged to conceal the credit card debt payoff which expelled his selection of a home and office, yet that was the case with Herbert West. Posted by: credit card debt at July 30, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINKYou may find it interesting to check some relevant pages about http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdemsite.net/ texas hold em http://www.playandwin777.com/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ... Posted by: tramadol at August 2, 2004 09:42 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
